Boxrec RULES!!!!

[XaduBoxer]

And you are failing.

If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get...
.

I haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world...
.

[Spicoli]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

[XaduBoxer]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

[killersheep]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

[XaduBoxer]

I am very interested how Pac is ranked at #1 in the 140 division least in the eyes of Boxrec and more so in the eyes of one of Pacs top cheerleaders...do tell Saddoboxer

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

[killersheep]

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

um what?

[Andre]

My guess (it's only a guess or else ask BoxRec yourselves) is BoxRec's computerized ranking system is programmed to give more points to the boxer's ranking in P4P category and also more points for fights in higher weight division. Also more points if the boxer fought highly ranked boxers which is very obvious... I guess, currently PAC can be ranked at 135 or 140 or 147 just like what BoxRec, Fightnews and Ring Mag did...

That's my guess...

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

Bull sh!t Floyd originally jumped 140 cause Kostya was there . He won at 147 and never got rated by anyone at 140 .

Its why allot of people are knockers of him and think he picked his way through and aimed at his marks.

Just cause he fought at the weight twice but then beat others at 147 doesnt mean the points from his 147 stint should be also added to the 140 should they?
If they should in your mind ;whats the difference between that and what your supporting in the above posts against Killersheeps true valid point against that system?

Surley you think it is a crap system really down deep don't you?

[Dizaster]

This is why I didn't want to get into this, you're just talking and not making a point.

I have evidence that back my claim. We can both agree that PAC has not fought at 140.

You have no evidence to prove that PAC should be ranked at 140, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence to justify your case. Until you have a valid reason to put PAC ahead of Hatton at 140 go to your room and let the grown-ups talk.

Yes it's a fact that PAC has not fought at 140 but it's also a fact that he already fought at 147.

For example, if PAC fought and annihilated the man at 147 then it's also a given that PAC is expected to annihilate the man at 140. Just think it that way...

Bull sh!t Floyd originally jumped 140 cause Kostya was there . He won at 147 and never got rated by anyone at 140 .

Its why allot of people are knockers of him and think he picked his way through and aimed at his marks.

Just cause he fought at the weight twice but then beat others at 147 doesnt mean the points from his 147 stint should be also added to the 140 should they?
If they should in your mind ;whats the difference between that and what your supporting in the above posts against Killersheep?

Well that's exactly it I think.. I wrote about 16 pages and 2 points back why I thought their was arguements for both... But this is a perfect highlight of why skipping a division (140) and destroying someone above it (147) (a fighter who was FAR from the biggest challenge in that higher weight anyway), does not mean you are going to knock off the top person at the weight below (140, and a tough Hatton)
It's a tough tough call in itself to knock someone off the top of 140 who has over and over earned his spot there, by someone who went from 1 fight at 135 to 1 fight 147. And not against the very top guys at either of those weights...

I think it's a case where Boxrec needed to go: "Hey, look what the points system gave us guys? Pac above Hatton at 140?.. I think we need to adjust that. Considering .... blah blah blah.." (every point that has been made against it in this thread)
That makes more sense..

[killersheep]

If I failed, I think your rumblings on BoxRec is a worse failure... Try to contact them and question them why they have PAC #1 at 140 and let's see what you will get...
.

I haven't failed at all, my point stands you can't rank a fighter as #1 in a division they haven't fought in. I don't need boxrec to justify their flawed system.

Ahh welcome Mr. Perfect (never failed ) ... So you think you're larger than BoxRec and you will not hear their explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... Go on... live in your fantasy world...
.

Yes in my crazy fantasy world, you have to fight in a weight class to be ranked in it.

[killersheep]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

[XaduBoxer]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

[killersheep]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

[Spicoli]

You sell many used cars with that weak stuff Saddo Boxer.... Do you have a stance/opinion and or point.....or should we rely on your crutch in Boxrec etc....I'm waiting for the gong to sound overhere

[XaduBoxer]

Here is Boxrec's official reason for having PAC at # 1 at 140

r_a_new = r_a + 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b + (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)
r_b_new = r_b - 0.345*v*cd*r_b*had_b - (0.345/(1+2*cd))*v*(r_b*had_b - r_a*had_a)

1. The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions.
2. The ratings are equalized between divisions in relation to average points of the boxers ranked #8, #9, #10, #11 and #12 in a division.

There you go, straight from boxrec. Still don't get how that put's him ahead of anyone that's fought at 140.

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

[killersheep]

That formula is too complicated for us humans...

That's why I told you to email and ask BoxRec... I'm sure they have a valid explanation why PAC is #1 at 140... That's the most sensible action to do... Just do it Mr. killer...

.

It's your point to prove.

My point is, these rankings orgs (BoxRec, Fightnews, Ring Mag, etc.) composed of several boxing experts and using powerful computers publicly published their rankings - rankings that they believed is true and correct according to their set of criteria... They have some basis on their rankings...

There could be flaws in their system so why not try asking them, email them... You might be right... PAC can't be #1 at 140...
.

Again it's your point to make. I don't know anyone that takes Fightnews or Boxrec's ranks seriously other than you and Fightnews and Boxrec. And since that is 100% the basis of your "point" PROVE IT.